One man’s selfishness might be another man’s bravery

Does "One man’s selfishness might be another man’s bravery" simply mean while a behavior from a person might seem selfish the same behavior in another person in a different situation might seem bravery, meaning that there is no determinism in defining human behaviors? Does the writer in the context use this argument to conclude that giving human adjectives to genes is not a good way to describe their properties because such adjectives do not even have certain and deterministic meanings in regard to human behaviors?

Context:

Neo-Darwinists believe that the gene is impelled by nothing more than an imperative to reproduce itself. It may operate in a context where other genes are bent on the same self-replicating course but genes don’t think, they are goal-less and they are not knowingly cooperative. But if they are not ‘kind’ then neither are they ‘selfish’. And Dawkins’ appropriation of this blatantly anthropomorphic term encapsulates for some a suspicion that the application of the neo-Darwinian imperative to all aspects of human ‘nature’ is driven by a section of the science community which may have a hidden agenda. ‘Selfish’ is a provocative word and it sounds unnecessarily aggressive, as if the neo- Darwinists, having depicted human nature as fundamentally imperialist, wish to secure their place with the Alpha males and not with the placatory losers. In their writings, most neo-Darwinists present convincing intellectual and free-thinking liberal credentials. Dawkins himself expresses a heartfelt belief in personal freedom, driven by a conviction that ignorance and superstition are the quickest routes to prejudice and exploitation in human society. All the same, it would be interesting to speculate whether he could have imposed a different personality on the gene. One man’s selfishness might be another man’s bravery. How about the Plucky Little Gene? The Gene could have been the Indomitable, the epitome of the lone hero, not selfish and imperialist but self-reliant and fearless, the kind who exists in the mythology and literature of every culture, compelled, against odds as bizarre in epic magic as they are in biology, to adapt, survive and reproduce – a Ulysses, a Rama, an Anansi or an Indiana Jones.